Real money only Cosmetics

2»

Comments

  • DeadlyDanDaMan
    615 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    I'll happily pay money for the prosthetic arm just to annoy people.

    Especially as it will be on my female character of an ethinc origin not usually associated with her faction!

    I wonder how much blue face paint and a mohican will cost......

    Honestly, if the more "controversial" customization options are buyable only, then I wouldn't mind them in the slightest. I would immediately know that those people are helping to fund future content of the game. Can't really be mad about that.
  • TEKNOCODE
    10709 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    I'll happily pay money for the prosthetic arm just to annoy people.

    Especially as it will be on my female character of an ethinc origin not usually associated with her faction!

    I wonder how much blue face paint and a mohican will cost......

    Honestly, if the more "controversial" customization options are buyable only, then I wouldn't mind them in the slightest. I would immediately know that those people are helping to fund future content of the game. Can't really be mad about that.

    Mmm. I’m purchasing.
  • MONEYPYR0
    828 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    MONEYPYR0 wrote: »
    I just hope that they won't sell entire uniforms. I don't want to see a situation where some paid camos are better than the ones available for free.

    What camos really even? For the Germans, you got proto-Flecktarn (I forget what it's called, but it's basically the same pattern) that I think the Fallschirmjäger Paratrooper sets will have. Americans would have either Oak Tree, of frog camo (dont remember the full name), but they didn't use camo much, since they would ocasionally be confused for Germans. Brits didn't use much camo, aside from brush stroke, pre-DPM patterns. And the Russians had the Amoeba pattern. Not a ton of camo to use compared to BF4. So I wouldn't count on camo patterns to be purchaseable, it'll probably be helmets, since those are the most prevelant part of a kit

    The Germans had quite a lot of camos for serveral seasons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_World_War_II_camouflage_patterns The other factions didn't have quite as many but could still be put to use.

    I just mainly remember the proto-Flecktarn, because Flecktarn is the pattern I wear the most. They were definitely the only faction actively using camo, so I wouldn't be surprised to see some camo cosmetics for them.
  • Sixclicks
    5073 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2018
    The only issue I'd really have with real money only cosmetics is if they give you some sort of clear advantage. Camouflage for example could do that.

    Otherwise I don't really have any issue with some real money only cosmetics.
  • MONEYPYR0
    828 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    The only issue I'd really have with real money only cosmetics is if they give you some sort of clear advantage. Camouflage for example could do that.

    Otherwise I don't really have any issue with some real money only cosmetics.

    People really overestimate camo in video games, and in general. Camo becomes pretty much useless once you start to move at walking speed and faster, and it only conceals you at ranges of about 50+ meters when you're stationary or prone. And once you're a few hundered meters away, then it really doesnt matter because you're so hard to see either way. Plus, people in games have icons over their heads anyways, so its not like it helps much anyways. Now the exception would be in a Hardcore mode, where you dont have a marker over your head, but again, you're either too far out to see, moving, or in that sweet spot where you're concealed. Plus, as mentioned before, camo wasn't widely used in WWII, aside from Germans using it.
  • TEXls1
    224 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Someone always needs something to cry about.
  • Sixclicks
    5073 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2018
    MONEYPYR0 wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    The only issue I'd really have with real money only cosmetics is if they give you some sort of clear advantage. Camouflage for example could do that.

    Otherwise I don't really have any issue with some real money only cosmetics.

    People really overestimate camo in video games, and in general. Camo becomes pretty much useless once you start to move at walking speed and faster, and it only conceals you at ranges of about 50+ meters when you're stationary or prone. And once you're a few hundered meters away, then it really doesnt matter because you're so hard to see either way. Plus, people in games have icons over their heads anyways, so its not like it helps much anyways. Now the exception would be in a Hardcore mode, where you dont have a marker over your head, but again, you're either too far out to see, moving, or in that sweet spot where you're concealed. Plus, as mentioned before, camo wasn't widely used in WWII, aside from Germans using it.

    You don't have a marker over your head as an enemy player unless you've been spotted by a scout with their spotting scope or a spotting flare. Otherwise you can almost completely blend in with your surroundings in BFV. This is especially a factor for dealing with enemy recons, prone bipoded support players, or even just assault players laying in wait in dark corners with an SMG or supports doing the same with a shotgun. Just because it wasn't widely used in WW2 doesn't mean DICE won't take the liberty of adding it anyway. Same with how female soldiers weren't a widespread occurrence on the frontline.

    The advantage of paid for camo, if it's in the game, will really depend on what the default uniforms are like or the free ones that you can unlock. On Narvik for example, the default uniform was actually pretty good at hiding you in the snow or tree lines.

    I can think of 3 instances in the alpha where an enemy player's uniform led to me being unable to notice them, and in 2/3 of those cases, led to my death. In one example, a support player was laying prone next to a recon ally of his. I noticed and killed the recon only because of his scope glint. Then I started to move on because I didn't notice anyone else there. After moving out of cover, that support player killed me. In another case, there was an enemy recon laying prone in the snow on the hill above C on Narvik. He was next to a treeline. After reviewing the clip I took of it, he was actually visible, but only his head. But the location he was in made it look like his head was just another rock. In the final example, a recon player was laying inside of a treeline. I only found him because I heard him fire, searched for him, walked past him, heard him start to reload, turned around, and I randomly melee'ed the base of the tree and connected with him. Camo certainly can make a difference in BFV where not everyone can spot anymore. Of course in these instances, it was the default uniform of the class, so it's not a paid for advantage. The point is, camo can absolutely make a difference.

    There are 3 enemy players in this screenshot. One is the dead body of a scout who I only killed because I noticed his scope glint. The other two are alive. How well can you see them? And would you see them while you're on the move? I should also mention, I'm colorblind.

    SGFTW.png

    Full sized image: https://postimg.cc/w7CpHb6V

    Technically there's a 4th enemy player, but he's not visible in the screenshot.

    Answer:
    answer.png

    Here's one of the other examples I mentioned.
    Post edited by Sixclicks on
  • MONEYPYR0
    828 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    MONEYPYR0 wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    The only issue I'd really have with real money only cosmetics is if they give you some sort of clear advantage. Camouflage for example could do that.

    Otherwise I don't really have any issue with some real money only cosmetics.

    People really overestimate camo in video games, and in general. Camo becomes pretty much useless once you start to move at walking speed and faster, and it only conceals you at ranges of about 50+ meters when you're stationary or prone. And once you're a few hundered meters away, then it really doesnt matter because you're so hard to see either way. Plus, people in games have icons over their heads anyways, so its not like it helps much anyways. Now the exception would be in a Hardcore mode, where you dont have a marker over your head, but again, you're either too far out to see, moving, or in that sweet spot where you're concealed. Plus, as mentioned before, camo wasn't widely used in WWII, aside from Germans using it.

    You don't have a marker over your head as an enemy player unless you've been spotted by a scout with their spotting scope or a spotting flare. Otherwise you can almost completely blend in with your surroundings in BFV. This is especially a factor for dealing with enemy recons, prone bipoded support players, or even just assault players laying in wait in dark corners with an SMG or supports doing the same with a shotgun. Just because it wasn't widely used in WW2 doesn't mean DICE won't take the liberty of adding it anyway. Same with how female soldiers weren't a widespread occurrence on the frontline.

    The advantage of paid for camo, if it's in the game, will really depend on what the default uniforms are like or the free ones that you can unlock. On Narvik for example, the default uniform was actually pretty good at hiding you in the snow or tree lines.

    I can think of 3 instances in the alpha where an enemy player's uniform led to me being unable to notice them, and in 2/3 of those cases, led to my death. In one example, a support player was laying prone next to a recon ally of his. I noticed and killed the recon only because of his scope glint. Then I started to move on because I didn't notice anyone else there. After moving out of cover, that support player killed me. In another case, there was an enemy recon laying prone in the snow on the hill above C on Narvik. He was next to a treeline. After reviewing the clip I took of it, he was actually visible, but only his head. But the location he was in made it look like his head was just another rock. In the final example, a recon player was laying inside of a treeline. I only found him because I heard him fire, searched for him, walked past him, heard him start to reload, turned around, and I randomly melee'ed the base of the tree and connected with him. Camo certainly can make a difference in BFV where not everyone can spot anymore. Of course in these instances, it was the default uniform of the class, so it's not a paid for advantage. The point is, camo can absolutely make a difference.

    There are 3 enemy players in this screenshot. One is the dead body of a scout who I only killed because I noticed his scope glint. The other two are alive. How well can you see them? And would you see them while you're on the move? I should also mention, I'm colorblind.

    SGFTW.png

    Full sized image: https://postimg.cc/w7CpHb6V

    Technically there's a 4th enemy player, but he's not visible in the screenshot.

    Answer:
    answer.png

    Here's one of the other examples I mentioned.

    Then your point that if camo is a paid cosmetic would be unfair wont matter, because the single and dual tone colors that the characters have anyways is already enough to make them blend in. So if they're already hard to see at times, camo wouldn't make much of a difference anyways, it'd just be a cool factor thing
  • Sixclicks
    5073 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2018
    MONEYPYR0 wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    MONEYPYR0 wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    The only issue I'd really have with real money only cosmetics is if they give you some sort of clear advantage. Camouflage for example could do that.

    Otherwise I don't really have any issue with some real money only cosmetics.

    People really overestimate camo in video games, and in general. Camo becomes pretty much useless once you start to move at walking speed and faster, and it only conceals you at ranges of about 50+ meters when you're stationary or prone. And once you're a few hundered meters away, then it really doesnt matter because you're so hard to see either way. Plus, people in games have icons over their heads anyways, so its not like it helps much anyways. Now the exception would be in a Hardcore mode, where you dont have a marker over your head, but again, you're either too far out to see, moving, or in that sweet spot where you're concealed. Plus, as mentioned before, camo wasn't widely used in WWII, aside from Germans using it.

    You don't have a marker over your head as an enemy player unless you've been spotted by a scout with their spotting scope or a spotting flare. Otherwise you can almost completely blend in with your surroundings in BFV. This is especially a factor for dealing with enemy recons, prone bipoded support players, or even just assault players laying in wait in dark corners with an SMG or supports doing the same with a shotgun. Just because it wasn't widely used in WW2 doesn't mean DICE won't take the liberty of adding it anyway. Same with how female soldiers weren't a widespread occurrence on the frontline.

    The advantage of paid for camo, if it's in the game, will really depend on what the default uniforms are like or the free ones that you can unlock. On Narvik for example, the default uniform was actually pretty good at hiding you in the snow or tree lines.

    I can think of 3 instances in the alpha where an enemy player's uniform led to me being unable to notice them, and in 2/3 of those cases, led to my death. In one example, a support player was laying prone next to a recon ally of his. I noticed and killed the recon only because of his scope glint. Then I started to move on because I didn't notice anyone else there. After moving out of cover, that support player killed me. In another case, there was an enemy recon laying prone in the snow on the hill above C on Narvik. He was next to a treeline. After reviewing the clip I took of it, he was actually visible, but only his head. But the location he was in made it look like his head was just another rock. In the final example, a recon player was laying inside of a treeline. I only found him because I heard him fire, searched for him, walked past him, heard him start to reload, turned around, and I randomly melee'ed the base of the tree and connected with him. Camo certainly can make a difference in BFV where not everyone can spot anymore. Of course in these instances, it was the default uniform of the class, so it's not a paid for advantage. The point is, camo can absolutely make a difference.

    There are 3 enemy players in this screenshot. One is the dead body of a scout who I only killed because I noticed his scope glint. The other two are alive. How well can you see them? And would you see them while you're on the move? I should also mention, I'm colorblind.

    SGFTW.png

    Full sized image: https://postimg.cc/w7CpHb6V

    Technically there's a 4th enemy player, but he's not visible in the screenshot.

    Answer:
    answer.png

    Here's one of the other examples I mentioned.

    Then your point that if camo is a paid cosmetic would be unfair wont matter, because the single and dual tone colors that the characters have anyways is already enough to make them blend in. So if they're already hard to see at times, camo wouldn't make much of a difference anyways, it'd just be a cool factor thing

    Like I said, it'll depend on the how well the default and free to unlock uniforms will blend in on the various maps in comparison to the real money ones. In the case of Narvik and the default uniforms on that map, I doubt premium cosmetics would make much of a difference. That won't necessarily be true for every map.
  • MONEYPYR0
    828 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    MONEYPYR0 wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    MONEYPYR0 wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    The only issue I'd really have with real money only cosmetics is if they give you some sort of clear advantage. Camouflage for example could do that.

    Otherwise I don't really have any issue with some real money only cosmetics.

    People really overestimate camo in video games, and in general. Camo becomes pretty much useless once you start to move at walking speed and faster, and it only conceals you at ranges of about 50+ meters when you're stationary or prone. And once you're a few hundered meters away, then it really doesnt matter because you're so hard to see either way. Plus, people in games have icons over their heads anyways, so its not like it helps much anyways. Now the exception would be in a Hardcore mode, where you dont have a marker over your head, but again, you're either too far out to see, moving, or in that sweet spot where you're concealed. Plus, as mentioned before, camo wasn't widely used in WWII, aside from Germans using it.

    You don't have a marker over your head as an enemy player unless you've been spotted by a scout with their spotting scope or a spotting flare. Otherwise you can almost completely blend in with your surroundings in BFV. This is especially a factor for dealing with enemy recons, prone bipoded support players, or even just assault players laying in wait in dark corners with an SMG or supports doing the same with a shotgun. Just because it wasn't widely used in WW2 doesn't mean DICE won't take the liberty of adding it anyway. Same with how female soldiers weren't a widespread occurrence on the frontline.

    The advantage of paid for camo, if it's in the game, will really depend on what the default uniforms are like or the free ones that you can unlock. On Narvik for example, the default uniform was actually pretty good at hiding you in the snow or tree lines.

    I can think of 3 instances in the alpha where an enemy player's uniform led to me being unable to notice them, and in 2/3 of those cases, led to my death. In one example, a support player was laying prone next to a recon ally of his. I noticed and killed the recon only because of his scope glint. Then I started to move on because I didn't notice anyone else there. After moving out of cover, that support player killed me. In another case, there was an enemy recon laying prone in the snow on the hill above C on Narvik. He was next to a treeline. After reviewing the clip I took of it, he was actually visible, but only his head. But the location he was in made it look like his head was just another rock. In the final example, a recon player was laying inside of a treeline. I only found him because I heard him fire, searched for him, walked past him, heard him start to reload, turned around, and I randomly melee'ed the base of the tree and connected with him. Camo certainly can make a difference in BFV where not everyone can spot anymore. Of course in these instances, it was the default uniform of the class, so it's not a paid for advantage. The point is, camo can absolutely make a difference.

    There are 3 enemy players in this screenshot. One is the dead body of a scout who I only killed because I noticed his scope glint. The other two are alive. How well can you see them? And would you see them while you're on the move? I should also mention, I'm colorblind.

    SGFTW.png

    Full sized image: https://postimg.cc/w7CpHb6V

    Technically there's a 4th enemy player, but he's not visible in the screenshot.

    Answer:
    answer.png

    Here's one of the other examples I mentioned.

    Then your point that if camo is a paid cosmetic would be unfair wont matter, because the single and dual tone colors that the characters have anyways is already enough to make them blend in. So if they're already hard to see at times, camo wouldn't make much of a difference anyways, it'd just be a cool factor thing

    Like I said, it'll depend on the how well the default and free to unlock uniforms will blend in on the various maps in comparison to the real money ones. In the case of Narvik and the default uniforms on that map, I doubt premium cosmetics would make much of a difference. That won't necessarily be true for every map.

    I don't think it'd make much difference man. Speaking from personal experience, I've seen camo tests done with solid colors, and dual tones, and they were still able to stay hidden as well as patterns like M81 Woodland, and MARPAT. I've also done camo tests myself both in real life, and in Battlefield 4, and eventually when the enemy is far enough away, it wont matter what they're wearing, and depending on how close they are, you'll likely see them unless they're in the corner of your vision, or staying still
  • TropicPoison
    2247 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Warframe does this so I really have no problem with it at all, warframe has some pretty cool skins and I've spent quite a bit of coin on it with 1k+ hours on it. I'm sure BFV will have some cool skins as well I'll probably buy.
  • olavafar
    1920 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    If camo can be bought that is equal to the uniforms that one can acquire by playing the game only, people will start to complain. They do not need to be better for this as players becomes very biased in their judgement when it comes to things like this even if they are objectively incorrect. Imagine if ANY of the guns from BF1 could be bought (we can exclude all assault ones just for sake of argument). I'm pretty sure which ever it was, it would be depicted as over powered.

    I think it will probably be best if the buyable stuff is clearly worse in terms of visibility, much like many of the 'legendary' vehicle skins in BF1.
  • MacaqueX
    674 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    MONEYPYR0 wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    MONEYPYR0 wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    MONEYPYR0 wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    The only issue I'd really have with real money only cosmetics is if they give you some sort of clear advantage. Camouflage for example could do that.

    Otherwise I don't really have any issue with some real money only cosmetics.

    People really overestimate camo in video games, and in general. Camo becomes pretty much useless once you start to move at walking speed and faster, and it only conceals you at ranges of about 50+ meters when you're stationary or prone. And once you're a few hundered meters away, then it really doesnt matter because you're so hard to see either way. Plus, people in games have icons over their heads anyways, so its not like it helps much anyways. Now the exception would be in a Hardcore mode, where you dont have a marker over your head, but again, you're either too far out to see, moving, or in that sweet spot where you're concealed. Plus, as mentioned before, camo wasn't widely used in WWII, aside from Germans using it.

    You don't have a marker over your head as an enemy player unless you've been spotted by a scout with their spotting scope or a spotting flare. Otherwise you can almost completely blend in with your surroundings in BFV. This is especially a factor for dealing with enemy recons, prone bipoded support players, or even just assault players laying in wait in dark corners with an SMG or supports doing the same with a shotgun. Just because it wasn't widely used in WW2 doesn't mean DICE won't take the liberty of adding it anyway. Same with how female soldiers weren't a widespread occurrence on the frontline.

    The advantage of paid for camo, if it's in the game, will really depend on what the default uniforms are like or the free ones that you can unlock. On Narvik for example, the default uniform was actually pretty good at hiding you in the snow or tree lines.

    I can think of 3 instances in the alpha where an enemy player's uniform led to me being unable to notice them, and in 2/3 of those cases, led to my death. In one example, a support player was laying prone next to a recon ally of his. I noticed and killed the recon only because of his scope glint. Then I started to move on because I didn't notice anyone else there. After moving out of cover, that support player killed me. In another case, there was an enemy recon laying prone in the snow on the hill above C on Narvik. He was next to a treeline. After reviewing the clip I took of it, he was actually visible, but only his head. But the location he was in made it look like his head was just another rock. In the final example, a recon player was laying inside of a treeline. I only found him because I heard him fire, searched for him, walked past him, heard him start to reload, turned around, and I randomly melee'ed the base of the tree and connected with him. Camo certainly can make a difference in BFV where not everyone can spot anymore. Of course in these instances, it was the default uniform of the class, so it's not a paid for advantage. The point is, camo can absolutely make a difference.

    There are 3 enemy players in this screenshot. One is the dead body of a scout who I only killed because I noticed his scope glint. The other two are alive. How well can you see them? And would you see them while you're on the move? I should also mention, I'm colorblind.

    SGFTW.png

    Full sized image: https://postimg.cc/w7CpHb6V

    Technically there's a 4th enemy player, but he's not visible in the screenshot.

    Answer:
    answer.png

    Here's one of the other examples I mentioned.

    Then your point that if camo is a paid cosmetic would be unfair wont matter, because the single and dual tone colors that the characters have anyways is already enough to make them blend in. So if they're already hard to see at times, camo wouldn't make much of a difference anyways, it'd just be a cool factor thing

    Like I said, it'll depend on the how well the default and free to unlock uniforms will blend in on the various maps in comparison to the real money ones. In the case of Narvik and the default uniforms on that map, I doubt premium cosmetics would make much of a difference. That won't necessarily be true for every map.

    I don't think it'd make much difference man. Speaking from personal experience, I've seen camo tests done with solid colors, and dual tones, and they were still able to stay hidden as well as patterns like M81 Woodland, and MARPAT. I've also done camo tests myself both in real life, and in Battlefield 4, and eventually when the enemy is far enough away, it wont matter what they're wearing, and depending on how close they are, you'll likely see them unless they're in the corner of your vision, or staying still

    Payed camo wont make any difference, i just hope that unlockable camos will not have real $ market, bc that will bring over many cheaters.
  • DarkestHour138
    992 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    For the live service to work they would have to have skins locked behind a paywall, otherwise nobody would buy them.

    I don't get why when other companies use this model you don't see much backlash, but when Dice/EA use it the community lose their minds.
  • BaronVonGoon
    6241 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I guess for those of us who have 0 interest in any form of cosmetic or skin this is a non issue.
  • LinkZeppeloyd
    701 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    For the live service to work they would have to have skins locked behind a paywall, otherwise nobody would buy them.

    I don't get why when other companies use this model you don't see much backlash, but when Dice/EA use it the community lose their minds.

    Is there another historically based war game using this model?
  • ragnarok013
    2308 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    MONEYPYR0 wrote: »
    MONEYPYR0 wrote: »
    I just hope that they won't sell entire uniforms. I don't want to see a situation where some paid camos are better than the ones available for free.

    What camos really even? For the Germans, you got proto-Flecktarn (I forget what it's called, but it's basically the same pattern) that I think the Fallschirmjäger Paratrooper sets will have. Americans would have either Oak Tree, of frog camo (dont remember the full name), but they didn't use camo much, since they would ocasionally be confused for Germans. Brits didn't use much camo, aside from brush stroke, pre-DPM patterns. And the Russians had the Amoeba pattern. Not a ton of camo to use compared to BF4. So I wouldn't count on camo patterns to be purchaseable, it'll probably be helmets, since those are the most prevelant part of a kit

    The Germans had quite a lot of camos for serveral seasons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_World_War_II_camouflage_patterns The other factions didn't have quite as many but could still be put to use.

    I just mainly remember the proto-Flecktarn, because Flecktarn is the pattern I wear the most. They were definitely the only faction actively using camo, so I wouldn't be surprised to see some camo cosmetics for them.
    @MONEYPYR0 the US Marines in the Pacific used camo patterns a lot too just not a million variants like the German armed forces had. https://www.wwiiimpressions.com/collections/usmc-p42-reversible-camouflage-hbt-uniform
  • ragnarok013
    2308 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    Mystriall wrote: »
    For the live service to work they would have to have skins locked behind a paywall, otherwise nobody would buy them.

    I don't get why when other companies use this model you don't see much backlash, but when Dice/EA use it the community lose their minds.

    It seems the BF community doesn't like change. Which is also the reason why so many are discussing how the game isn't like whatever previous BF title, and how it should be more like said title, instead of discussing the actual game and how the content in the game works or doesn't work in relation to the actual game itself. It's almost always how it works or doesn't work in relation to a different game.

    From my many years here in the community I think the Battlefield community likes incremental change that adds to the game; they aren't however huge fans of constantly shaking up the etchasketch and starting from scratch like we've seen in BF1 and BF5 or a complete re imagining like we had with Visceral's Hardline. Every time that happens we see larges parts of the community have issues with it.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!